AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this single judgment I intend to decide the above captioned civil revision and civil revisions No. 1465 to 1474 of 2012, total 1I in numbers, as the main controversy challenged in 11 suits is a registered document titled as "Dastbardari-Nama" dated 03.12.1955 and even the oral evidence recorded in one suit is verbatim copy of the same in all the suits.
2. Briefly, the facts as leading to this civil revision are that Mst. Waziran Mai the original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration 'on 13.08.2001 alleging therein that she be declared the owner of suit property mentioned in the head-note of plaint. She also sought a declaration that registered document dated 03.12.1955 titled as "Dastbardari-Nama" on behalf of plaintiff is against the law and facts, based upon fraud and has no legal effect against the rights of plaintiff, therefore is void and fake. A declaration was also sought by the plaintiff that the order of cancellation of inheritance mutation is against the law and attestation of mutation in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 are against the law.
It was stated in the plaint that Shero Khan, propositus of the parties, was Shia by sect died and at the time of his death two sons (defendants No. 1 and 2) and two daughters (plaintiff and mother of defendant No. 3, Mst. Amiran) being his legal heirs inherited him.
3. The written statement was filed by all the defendants separately. They contested the suit.
Learned Trial Court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence.
Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their claims. After the close of trial, .Vide judgment & decree dated 24.12.2009 the suit were dismissed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Bhakkar. Feeling aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred before the learned first Appellate Court, which, also met with the same fate vide judgment & decree dated 25.01.2012 passed by learned Addl District Judge, Bhakkar. Hence, this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff argues that "Dastbardari-Nama" by Mst. Ameeran and. Mst. Waziran, sisters of defendants No. 1 and '2 is forged end fictitious one, as they were Parda- Nasheen' ladies; that it is against the provisions of the Contract Act, that the plaintiff was having her own children as well as husband; that it is against the Islam and public policy; that even the consolidation proceedings were carried out in the impugned Muwaziat but it does not injure the rights of petitioner-plaintiff. Further argued that for presuming a 30 years old document there is discretion with the Court to presume the same and further that this impugned document if be recorded as gift, even then it is nullity in the eye of law when the lady was having children and husband. It has been further argued that in such-like cases mentioning of detail of fraud is not necessary and the defendants-respondents being the beneficiary were bound to prove the valid execution of document and that in such-like cases there is no bar of limitation in the way of petitioner-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has relied upon "PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1 (Ghulam A.I and 2 others v. Mst. Ghula Sarwar Naqvi)".
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- defendant argued that there are concurrent findings of facts in the matter recorded by both the Courts below, which need not be interfere with by this Court; that the impugned registered deed was a family settlement, it was not against the principles of policy; that the consolidation proceedings were conducted in the impugned Muwaziat in the year 1961-62, therefore there is clear cut bar of limitation against the plaintiff-petitioner; that the impugned family settlement was acted upon, therefore there was no right with the plaintiff to file the suit in hand; that no detail of fraud has been mentioned in the pleadings or in the evidence; that the plaintiff-petitioner herself did not appear in the witness-box; that it is 30 years old registered document coming from the proper custody and the presumptions under Article 100 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are certainly attached with the said document. Learned counsel further states that the plaintiff has not challenged mutation No. 2912 sanctioned on 31.12.1955 in her favour, which was also on the basis of this impugned registered document; that the witnesses of impugned document are close relatives of the parties, as Ghulam Hassan Lumberdar is paternal uncle of the parties and husband of plaintiff Mst. Waziran, namely Abdul Hye Khan is an identifier of the parties before the Sub- Registrar; that it is absolutely not against the public policy, as it was a deed of settlement between the parties, which was registered under Section 25 of the Contract Act. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon "1991 SCM R 1779 (Mst. Mumtaz v. Afsar Khan and another)". Learned counsel further argued that fraud was never pleaded as required under Order VI, Rule 4 of the CPC. Reliance is placed upon "2007 SCM R 614 (Muhammad Amir and others v. Mst. Beevi and others)". Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants states that land measuring 104 kanals was transferred in favour of plaintiff and she admitted that a tube-well was installed by them in the property; that after 47 years of registration of impugned document suit has been filed and the grounds taken therein are absolutely not believable. While relying upon "NLR 2012 Civil Supreme Court 1 (Asif.Roza Mir v. Muhammad Khurshid Khan) and 2005 SCM R 564 (Allah Dad and 3 others v. Dhuman Khan and 10 others)" learned counsel states that it is the substance of the document which is to be seen and not its caption. Further states that no specific date of knowledge has been given in the suit and the Limitation Act cannot be straightway brush aside in any proceedings and that after the consolidation proceedings the rights of .The parties an determined under the Consolidation Act and if any party has objection after the consolidation proceedings, certainly it has a right to sue for its grievance and the consolidation proceedings were confirmed in the year 1961-62 and these proceedings were n challenged in the suit.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record with their able assistance.
7. The reappraisal of evidence is not required herein and is also not permissible under the law except when any party of the proceedings is able to show any fatal blunder by the Courts below while recording the findings and ignoring the valuable evidence of the parties. I have noticed that both the Courts below minutely scrutinized the evidence oral as well as documentary led by both the parties. The statement of P.W-1, who is son of original plaintiff, was recorded on 23.06.2009. He stated that one of his brothers is a Patwari having the age of 50 years. This fact has been noticed by both the Courts below that the story narrated in the plaint is not believable, when one of the sons of plaintiff was Patwari and if he was of 50 years old in the year 2009, it means that even 20 years prior to the filing of suit he would have joined the service of Patwari, as such the story narrated in the plaint is not believable. The legal point urged by learned counsel for, the respondents that as the impugned document is registered one and in lieu whereof some property was given to the plaintiff, therefore it' was the substance of the document which is a family settlement and the same is permissible under the law. In my view when a party comes to the Court, it must come with clean hands. The writing of document and its registration in the year 1955 has been fully proved and both the Courts below have given the findings that the ' defendants have proved the valid execution of that document. Even I am also of the view that the execution of document has been proved without any shadow of doubt. If the plaintiff was to challenge the validity of that document on the legal point, then it would have been appreciateable that she would have pleaded the correct facts in her plaint. From the bare perusal of plaint it is evident that the facts have not been correctly pleaded, as she has not challenged the mutation in her favour on the basis of same document, which has been impugned in this suit. In these circumstances, I am unable to disagree with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC has been made out by the petitioner-plaintiff.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I see no flaw in the impugned judgments and decrees, passed by both the Courts below. Resultantly, this civil revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Civil review